Printable View
Namaste,
I have heard Hindu and Buddhist views of the Buddha. I believe it is said in Sanatana Dharma that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, but most, if not all, of Buddhism claims that the Buddha was not theistic.
I am just seeking guidance on this subject and what you think.
Thanks. :)
In terms of absolute Advaita, it is difficult for the followers to understand if he is theist or atheist. It is how you take it.
That his realisation and sayings conform to the highest order of Advaita - says that all.
There is hardly any difference at the highest level of knowledge and not much even in the lower levels.
So he is another great Saint who rediscovered the SD.
Love and best wishes
Dear Friend,
Let us summarize the scriptures of Sanathana Dharma to understand who accordingly is Buddha
Before getting to understand Buddha, lets take a simple example...
If we talk about the today's knowledge in technology, there are quite good advancements in the field of electronics, atomic physics
and chemical industries.....
"ANYONE" interested , who is doing studies and research on the above mentioned topics can gain expertise in the field....
now the term "Anyone" includes both "good" and "evil".....
- many scientists and researchers, who belong to the "good" category, use those technologies to
invent new things which will actually help mankind..which actually benefit mankind...
- many others who belong to the "evil" category, use the same technology to destroy mankind, cause
harm to everyone...
Common factor above is "availability of knowledge or technology"...
The major issue being this knowledge or vidya is available to both good and evil.....
now lets get into our scriptures....around the end of dwapara yuga..there was chaos everywhere....adharmis started to grow up everywhere...now the "technologies and knowledge" which allow one to master the skills of weaponry...tricks to cause illusions...techniques to do gain greater power and strength....
all these were part of the vedas...as anything that is vidya or knowledge is veda....performing a yagna correctly could yield huge powers bestowed on Anyone[good or evil] who performs it correctly...
again at that point of time there were both good and evil people everywhere...and the percentage of evil was increasing...
good people could do a yagna prescribed in a vedas to bestow beneficial results on mankind..where as the evil ones
followed the same yagna only gain power and cause harm to others....
so again the
Common factor was "vedas or knowledge and the technology to gain power and strength"....
The major issue was that this was available for both good and evil....
example...demons like Ravana and Hiranyakashyapu, followed the vedas, did very vigorous yagnas and tapasya,
and got the boons frm bramha, only to destroy everything...
the main point is "when evil get access to knowledge, they use it for destruction"....
the knowledge about atomic science can be used to provide energy to millions and also destroy millions in a second, if used in a wrong way...
the chemical know how can be used to invent new medicines which can save lives and also be used to kill people instantly when misused...
so, at that point the "evil" people were using vedas to gain power to destroy others...now Sri Maha Vishnu was approached by the saints and demigods to provide a solution for this problem...and Sri Maha Vishnu, Who is the creator of maaya, Who can mesmerize anyone using His maya[remember mohini avatar], took up a form which could throw the mask of maya "which mis-leads"...Paramathma took up such a form of that person who "instructs about enlightenment" or one who does "bodhana".....This Avatar of Sri Vishna had such an effect that anyone around would automatically get attracted to His divine effulgence...
Sri Maha Vishnu, then started to preach "ONLY" those "evil" ones who
were using "vedas" for destructive purposes to completely abandon everything, including the vedas, and follow His instruction of "nothingness" alone...the maya of Sri Hari was so strong that every evil person was so easily trapped,
like a fish that falls for a tasty worm as bait, they started to completely give up the vedas...
when the evil stopped using the vedas to get power and use it for destruction, they followed the advice of Paramathma to give up
everything, dharma started to get back.....which again was the intention of Paramathma.......
as Sri Krishna beautifully says in Bhagavad Gita, whenever there is a decline in dharma, He comes to rescue...He takes up different Avatars,
suitable according to time, place and requirement and re-establishes dharma...as He is dharma personified....
A few questions:
- Why did Maha Vishnu not kill them instead, like He does usually?
Not everyone is "lucky enough" to be killed by Paramathma, because its only those who have done extremely good deeds, but have erred very slightly, are born as great asuras...and in order to maintain the "karma phala rule", their good deeds are rewarded in a way where Paramathma Himself comes
to kill them , so that they, even though are currently asuras, can take their last breath looking at that Parabramha Himself...moreover all this is His leela, which we mortals can only try to understand...
- So, is it ok to follow the teachings of Budha[to give up everything], as He is yet another Avatar of Sri Vishnu?
Absolutely NOT, unless you belong to that "evil" category...
- Why?
If "giving up everything including the duty" was right, today we would NEVER EVER have had "Bhagawad Gita"....
if giving up everything is right, then Sri Krishna would have simply joined Arjuna, both of them would have given up their dharma, duty and everything and would have go into the forest, instead of fighting for dharma....
what one should see is the purpose of Sri Maha Vishnu taking up the Bhuddha avatar, again only to save dharma.."to mislead the evil from materialistic knowledge and power gains"...When the basic purpose of the Avatar was to mis-lead "ONLY the evil" away from vedas, why should someone "good" even try to follow that..Paramathma uses different ways, only to protect dharma
- Is Gautham Siddharta, the one we know as Buddha, the avatar?
According to Puranas, Gauthama Siddharta is not even mentioned anywhere...
The Avatar of Sri Vishnu was not born as a kshatriya on earth....
This Avatar not only led away the evil on earth, but also in the heavens, and Gauthama Siddharta did not do any such thing...So...a rough conclusion is that just like thousands of swamijis and gurujis, are considered as God, the same thing can be applied to Gauthama Siddhartha....
Most importantly, Siddharta gave up his duty as a "kshatriya", which contradicts the very basic concept of dharma....as Sri Krishna very clearly says, one must perform his duty, and "sanyasa or tyaaga[renunciation]" is not regarding duty, BUT only towards the results of the duty...
- So, does that mean a kshatriya should never go in the search of truth?
Absolutely he can...but being a kshatriya, one must do his prescribed duty, being unattached to the results, thus making him a "Raja Yogi"..as Sri Krishna asks Arjuna to be like King Janaka of Videha, who was a Raja rishi...giving up of prescribed duties is never dharma nor a solution..
when one does the prescribed duty as an offering to Him and always remains in His thoughts, he is sure to reach Him...
Namaskar,
I will try to get my thoughts on this topic.I know that Lord Buddha was the Ninth Incarnation of Shri Hari Vishnu.Buddha's birth name Siddhartha,he was the son of King Suddhodhan.His father didn't want him to go outside the palace to see the bad condition of people like Poverty,Disease,Death etc.But one day he with the guy who used to drive his Chariot went to see his father's kingdom and then he came in contact with Poverty,Disease,Old Age,Death and other Harsh Realities of this Human Life.He asked the guy who drove his chariot about what had happened to a man when he saw a guy who was suffering from some disease then he went on to ask why were four people carrying a man on their shoulders then that boy said because that man had died and more intriguing question to what the boy answered truthfully.Young Siddhartha was greatly pained with these realities of life and used to be very upset.Then his father thought that if he gets married everything would be alright but nothing changed and one night Siddhartha left his palace and went to the woods.Why he did this?In order to search for Peace and Enlightenment.
And we know then after that he came to be known as Buddha and found enlightenment.He taught mankind great principles and also a Religion Buddhism took its birth to follow the teaching of Lord Buddha.
Dhanyavad
Namaskar,Quote:
Originally Posted by SanathanaDharma
:goodpost:
^Great summary here; from my experience, this is how the Buddha is viewed from the perspective of Sanatana Dharma. I was going to attempt to give a complete explanation, but the above explanation is better than any attempt I could have made. Very nice job, SanathanaDharma.
With Love & Light,
LightOfOm
The Bhagavad-gita version by ISKON (well-illustrated) showed Buddha as some avatar of Vishnu. Is that really the view of most Hindus? Having now being interested in studying Hinduism, Buddhism/Zen, Taoism (and some years also Jainism) almost 20 years, I find that the Upanishads, Krishna, Patanjali, and probably Valmiki, have a lot more knowledge than Buddhism. Apparently Buddhism denies self exists, and denies logic, so deconstructs/discards its own whole axiomatic system of doctrine. I don't think Buddhism is much of a philosophy of ‘enlightenment’ as non-enlightenment. Whether Hinduism got the term ‘enlightenment’ from Buddhism, Hinduism is more of a spiritual system of enlightenment. Buddhist meditation is great (since the first four or so stages are the same as Hindu) but I would never anymore believe any of its doctrine... well, not it's general spiritual, metaphysical, epistemological doctrine... some of the ethical doctrine is similar to Hinduism (five precepts) so makes sense.
Hi David,
It seems at the moment that the only thing that ISKCON gets right is singing and cooking. Buddhism is accepted by most Hindus because he spoke about Dharma, and Dharma was the common link among all the people, so there is no separation between his teachings and the people of India at the time. Was Buddha an Avatar of Vishnu, it depends on how one understands what is Vishnu and different traditions may or may not accept. Within Iskcon as per Stephen Knapp research is that there are two Buddha's, Siddharta Gautama was not Vishnu Avatar and there are two's Buddha one the man who attained Buddha or the awakened state Siddharta Gautama and the other an incarnation of Vishnu who appeared in Gaya, i'm not totally sure how credible his works are. Siddharta, was an ordinary advanced man who took to the path of renunciation to seek truth and attained enlightenment, this is the historical Buddha most of us know and the main feature and character of the Pali Tradition. There is a lot of conflicting versions out there so good luck with what version you choose. Buddha takes on different meanings in Mahayana, Zen and Vrajayana, but I am yet to find any of these system incomplete to attain the same goal as what people would term as Hinduism. One thing that is useful about the Pali teachings and Buddhism in general who deal with the Historical Siddharta is that he was a human being, a normal man, who suffered and looked for the solution and found it in the highest of spiritual realization.
Although this topic has been covered so many times I wanted to include something about the nature of consciousness in the ancient world, and why traditions accept and welcome other discoveries into their tradition or practice. This is only a personal thought and something that seems common among all traditions. I will use an ISKCON translated verse of Bhagavad Gita to prove the same universal point, something that hopefully is just a temporary blip to not see this as part of their practice and realization of Krsna.
TEXT 30
yo mam pasyati sarvatra
sarvam ca mayi pasyati
tasyaham na pranasyami
sa ca me na pranasyati
SYNONYMS
yaḥ—whoever; mām—Me; paśyati—sees; sarvatra—everywhere; sarvam—everything; ca—and; mayi—in Me; paśyati—he sees; tasya—his; aham—I; na—not; praṇaśyāmi—am lost; saḥ—he; ca—also; me—to Me; na—nor; praṇaśyati—is lost.
TRANSLATION
For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.
Whomever is ones Istadeva is ones best friend, God for want of a better word appears in many forms, in many ways and once one chooses that Istadeva he then advances towards its nature or being, the quality that it represents, the deeper the understanding of ones own Istadeva then the closer one becomes to that hidden all pervasive nature, the friendship~union increases and one gains vision to see his own Istadeva within all things as the above Sloka says, the culture becomes ingrained, one is never separate from their Istadeva and see's Him/Her everywhere, within all things. Neither Buddhism or Hinduism are Monotheistic, although God for want of a better word is One and undivided, he is also unlimited, he is full of wonder and surprise, so how can we limit how he appears, he appears in all things within his unlimited nature so the friendship of ones personal Istadeva becomes all pervasive and experienced within all experiences. So the deeper one goes into the spiritual relationship with the Absolute they see that same Absolute within all things, the traditions would be integrated with each other, diversity existed but unity was also there, there was no such thing as Buddhism and Hinduism in the strictest sense, that came later in compartments that apparently didn't communicate well with other and at best tolerated each other, and ISKCON at this moment supports more the 18th century divide by western imperial scholars than the time honoured traditions of its own historical culture. Absurd, that's why devotees think Hinduism is higher than Buddhism or Buddhism is Nihilistic and denies the self. If one is Buddhist then see Buddha within all things, if one is Krsna Bhakta then see Krsna within all things, if one is Shaivate then see Shiva within all things, everyone will meet there with knowledge~ jnana and devotion ~bhakti, so to insult another istadeva or make it less than ones own would consider to be an offence to ones own Istadeva simple because his Istadeva was within everything.
In Bhagvatam Shiva and Vishnu are seen as the same, as both existing within each other, not separate, same applies to all Indian Born traditions and most the ancient world thought on mass this same way. Interesting just yesterday I heard that if one wants to understand Buddhism one has to go back before 16th century, I found this comment very interesting within the history of India.There was an extremely detrimental period due to Monotheistic religions forcing a one God around the world and its its efforts to destroy or try to destroy all other cultures in its efforts for domination and power. If we open our ancient -past ancient means timeless we find the answers.
Hare Krsna
Namaste,
Hinduism is an ancient religion with a vast treasure of spiritual literature; Buddhism is a newly minted, relatively new philosophy which is a sub-set of Hinduism. Why would anyone compare the two?Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
WOW! Another unsatisfied customer.Quote:
Originally Posted by markandeya 108 dasa
Denigrating a Hindu sampradaye which is different from mine is not what we Hindus do!
Pranam.
Namaste Believer,
I am not degenerating any sampradya, but if ISKCON does not abide in its core philosophy at present with Bhagavad Gita then these parts I cant agree, I am not saying all ISKCON is bad. I fully aware of what happens in ISKCON, the singing and dancing is powerful and the best part of ISCKON that people universally can accept them, but they have peculiar views, which they keep dividing themselves from others, its still infected by western Christian Theology. I don't have any real problem with them many are my friends but that doesnt mean that whats not right at the moment goes without notice. Their understanding same as yours about Buddhism is not right and adds to nothing constructive, Buddhism is not relatively new as Siddharta himself said he taught an ancient path told by many previous sages, it was Devala the Dark a Vedic Rishi who discovered him, I feel this part of education has been misrepresented but soon enough the unity within the traditions will prove positive, even if there is some difference, but that is not unique just between Buddhism and Hinduism. I wrote the post in positive way and I want to keep that way.
Pranam
Hare Krsna